Well, I've never seen the likes of this, a government that believes that the way out of a recession is counter-cyclical spending and growth? It's madness, sir, and it will not stand! Raising the minumum wage to stimulate demand creates a cycle of consumerism that will only end in a diminishment of the suppy of the very goods businesses cling to. Lowering the retirement age will create a shortage of labor, leading to even HIGHER WAGES!!! So, in France, you're expected to work for a increasing wage and retire comfortably at an early age? You're never gonna see anything like that here in the good ole USA, USA, USA! No wonder they live so long, THEIR GOVERNMENT ENCOURAGES IT!!! It's like the "Bizzaro" world from the Superman comics-did you ever read those? They were great, right? Even though before the comic-book code they were sending secret messages, afterwards they were even better, a lot more flying around and being super and all that. You know, the thing I never got was how Lois Lane could never figure out Clark Kent was Superman-it's the same face with glasses on! She was a reporter for krissakes! That kind of ruined it for me... We sure could use Superman now though...You ever wish that reality was fiction? Me, too! It would be great to just make things up and, if you could get enough people to play along, reality wouldn't matter after a while. So, Hollande's girlfriend is a reporter, huh? Naw....it couldn't be.
"So, Erin, at last we meet..."
Monday, June 18, 2012
Friday, June 8, 2012
Wisconsin
I acknowledge that this response to the Wisconsin recall vote is late, perhaps out of the immediate focus of the news cycle, but this won’t be a dissection of the news portion of that result, rather, a discussion of what it does and doesn’t mean going forward. I haven’t seen the opinions I wish to express stated yet.
First what it does mean, plainly, in the macro and micro viewpoints: as I mentioned to you, Erin, before the vote, what I was primarily looking at in Wisconsin was the raw vote total, the total number of people who participated in the referendum. It was remarkably high, actually higher than the total vote in the initial election, so the verdict can only be assumed to be a valid and representative interpretation of the public’s comfort with the process of the Governor’s actions. As you compared them to “two Sumo wrestlers”, accurately and humorously put, all I can say is that neither one of those wrestlers is very popular and, I don’t know about you, I don’t expect Sumo wrestling will suddenly catch fire, replacing the NFL as it collapses under a mountain of litigation. It could happen in areas of the country that have larger Asian-American communities, like La Jolla or San Diego, but I just don’t think it has a broad enough appeal to lure Americans away from the professional wrestling they have come to enjoy.
In Washington. (You saw that coming, right?)
As far as Wisconsinites are concerned, they’d rather sit back on their Lazyboys with their bag of munchies propped up on their beer-bellies, sucking down that soon-to-be forbidden 44oz. Big Gulp, yelling back at the screen, “Yeah, that’s right, you shove that guy out of the ring, you magnificent fat bastard! Yeah, you do that, yeah.” which has the unfortunate effect of spewing munchie particles along with the speech. That’s the part of it that the Democrats really hate, the unfortunate spectacle of it all and the loss of the intrinsic, aesthetic beauty of the public discourse. I agree: it’s a difficult thing to watch but they’ve made their choice quite plain. Now they have to get the other Sumo wrestler out of the ring by themselves. Good luck with that, Cheeseheads.
Perhaps they’ve just lost their appreciation of the perfectly executed Figure-4 headlock as practiced by the House Republicans? Remember, the Figure-4 is a submission hold. (See what I did there?)
You know, Erin, I think many people are too quick to dismiss our metaphors as simply glib speech when, if you really take our ideas, like the Sumo wrestler comparison, and expand on them, they soon see just how apt they are! We’re under-appreciated, like all geniuses, but history will bear us out. Unless Newt Gingrich rewrites it. Again.
I digress.
One other point, that doesn’t fit into the wrestling motif, is that Wisconsin was the first state to endorse collective bargaining and now they’re the first to reject it. That establishes a cycle and I’d be willing to bet it occurs again because that’s what cycles do, they cycle, so my panties are much less bunched than your typical bleeding heart liberal-though still as frilly as ever.
I like to feel pretty.
The good news out of Tuesday is that seemly more Badgers are involved and invested in the process than two years ago and if that energy can be harnessed and focused into sound governance, well, hey, they just might have something going on there. If Governor Walker can do that, he just might make it off my dartboard. Other than the raw force of the mandate, the recall is very much a Wisconsin thing and reflects very little of the national mood, but the force is compelling. The vote total indicates, to me, a more engaged electorate and if THAT is the national trend, the presidential candidates would be well served to start giving stemwinders full of nuance, philosophy and history on policy, not just recitation of the politics and positions we’re familiar with. They’ve got our full attention now: go for informed consent to the policies they wish to embrace.
Part 2.
Does the recall vote have a macro lesson for the nation? Well, yes, a subtle one nestled in the broad message of the gathered voice of Wisconsin: fortune favors the bold and, whether I think Walker is correct in his actions or not, he has taken action when so many politicians have sought refuge from the storms of these times. Several years ago, I wrote a letter to you (the "What if?" letter) where I stated, "What if Newton was wrong, action doesn't equal reaction, and Washington could fix everything by doing nothing?" Now, I acknowledge, nestled in that statement are a couple of assertions that could be quibbled with, that Washington can, or should, fix everything and, of utmost importance to me personally, that physics does actually, and accurately, reflect reality (both questions dealt with in the" Paul Begala " letter) but the thrust of the question has been shown to be true by the result on Tuesday. The people have plainly stated their belief that governance has the capacity and obligation to address the problems of today and now the government is empowered to respond.
This, in and of itself, is quite a turn-around from the Tea-Party movement of 2010 when the thrust of the argument was a limited role of government. The people have said, "Take control."
Now, before the neo-cons out there get all excited, I agree the mandate is for less government overall BUT the interesting thing to me is that there is renewed faith in the exercise of democracy to bring that about. Again, quite a turn-around from the "Occupy" movement of a year ago. The people have said, "The system will still work."
I find this encouraging because it could bring both the right and left fringes back into the center.
So, as conflicted as I am about what was endorsed in Wisconsin, I'm glad it was said so clearly by so many. I found it edifying.
Part 3.
So, what exactly is this conflict I feel in the endorsement of the current practice of conservatism? As it is currently being expressed, in these times, I believe conservatism is, while not necessarily counter-productive, less productive as an economic philosophy than Keynesian counter-cyclical spending and will have to engage in income redistribution of one kind or another to have ultimate success.
There, I said it and I just feel so free right now, like a great burden has lifted from me.
The thrust of the conservative argument is that business CAN'T expand because of regulations. Okay, let's assume the climate is made perfect for expansion, every possible barrier to capitalism has be removed, government is austere and chastised and now what? Does Business come sweeping in to revel in the glory prepared for them? Do they start hiring, expanding and producing in their new liaise-faire wonderland?
I think most of us have seen the movie "Field of Dreams" and are familiar with the phrase "If you build it, they will come." What is most often lost in that scenario is the inherent leap of faith necessary for that to work. Even if everything is perfect for business, will they make the leap of faith to expand and hire in an environment that STILL lacks demand for those goods and services? Maybe it's just my observation of businessmen but they don't seem to act on faith, rather on data, and are compelled to do so by their shareholders. If General Electric suddenly announced a massive expansion and hiring, in this environment, shareholders would be stampeding to the sales floor to bail out of it and there goes that expansion...
Now the argument could be made, "If there isn't demand here, there's demand somewhere, globally, for the product and if the environment is that perfect, it will become more competitive globally." Perhaps true but it still requires that leap of faith AND the willingness to produce here and ship to the market, as opposed to producing in the market it is serving. If you were a businessman, what would you do?
Of course, that scenario also necessiates wages not just as low as the lowest competing labor force but the lowest wage MINUS shipping costs. Ouch.
All conservative philosophies are based on the premise that business sets the table for the economy. Keynesian philosophy is that government sets the table for business because it controls the printing of currency businesses trade in and are, therefore, more responsible and responsive to fluctuations in the value of that currency. As much as it would please my inner socialist to say that business caused the recession the truth is the recession was a reaction caused by the action of a sustained period of low wage growth. Over the last 30 years, government has consistently sided with business to keep wages low and now, surprise! No demand across the broad economy. Who'd have thunk right?
So, to recap, who caused the recession? The government, endorsed by the people. Who's responsible for fixing it? Business? That hardly seems fair, now does it? We, all of us, allowed this to happen by believing that greed would fix everything and unfettered greed was the greatest moral good.
Sorry about that, I know not everybody likes that much honesty.
We're paying attention now though, right? Wow, what a mess we've got. Deeply in debt AND a deflating economy. We've got a lot of work to do and I'm suggesting we get to it as soon a possible. The only asset we have is our ability to borrow at extremely low rates, both domestically and abroad. Why is this true and unlikely to change? We're a responsible country, historically, and our prosperity is vital to the economies of the rest of the world. These countries aren't loaning us money simply for the interest they will make on the loan but because they HAVE to loan us money. We buy their products and they are subsidising our DEMAND for their products. If they stop loaning us money their economies contract. So we borrow the money and use it DIRECTLY as our creditors wish us to use it, as demand stimulus, on fiscal spending programs and, as we grow our way out, everyone feels less pain.
Here's my favorite math equation for you to consider: the US government can currently borrow money at approximately 2-3% per annum on the world market. According to the GAO, the rate of economic stimulus in unemployment benefits returns $1.60 in activity for each $1 spent. Maybe I'm wrong about this Erin, you like to crunch numbers-crunch those, but it appears to me we should borrow money, give it away and use the increased revenue and business cycle to not only pay-off the debt, but to re-inflate the economy.
Yeah, I know, moral hazard, yeah, yeah, yeah. Would you prefer economic hazard?
Part 4.
Sorry about the stemwinder, and all that, but as I stated earlier I believe this is the time for nuance, philosophy and history. I think people want to reconnect to the intrinsic nature of our culture and society, and the expression of the oft-forgotten underpinnings of what we are doing here.
To this end I offer:
60, Rabindranath Tagore
The Goldberg Variations, Bach
Sonnet 43, Elizabeth Barrett Browning
The Dead, James Joyce
What a wonderful world, Louis Armstrong
Europa, Carlos Santana
Maybe you already know these things, maybe you've forgotten and just needed to be reminded. We all want to be great, to be remembered but maybe being great sometimes means just the work, keeping the wheels on the wagon, and allowing someone else to be great.
And we certainly have an opportunity for that.
First what it does mean, plainly, in the macro and micro viewpoints: as I mentioned to you, Erin, before the vote, what I was primarily looking at in Wisconsin was the raw vote total, the total number of people who participated in the referendum. It was remarkably high, actually higher than the total vote in the initial election, so the verdict can only be assumed to be a valid and representative interpretation of the public’s comfort with the process of the Governor’s actions. As you compared them to “two Sumo wrestlers”, accurately and humorously put, all I can say is that neither one of those wrestlers is very popular and, I don’t know about you, I don’t expect Sumo wrestling will suddenly catch fire, replacing the NFL as it collapses under a mountain of litigation. It could happen in areas of the country that have larger Asian-American communities, like La Jolla or San Diego, but I just don’t think it has a broad enough appeal to lure Americans away from the professional wrestling they have come to enjoy.
In Washington. (You saw that coming, right?)
As far as Wisconsinites are concerned, they’d rather sit back on their Lazyboys with their bag of munchies propped up on their beer-bellies, sucking down that soon-to-be forbidden 44oz. Big Gulp, yelling back at the screen, “Yeah, that’s right, you shove that guy out of the ring, you magnificent fat bastard! Yeah, you do that, yeah.” which has the unfortunate effect of spewing munchie particles along with the speech. That’s the part of it that the Democrats really hate, the unfortunate spectacle of it all and the loss of the intrinsic, aesthetic beauty of the public discourse. I agree: it’s a difficult thing to watch but they’ve made their choice quite plain. Now they have to get the other Sumo wrestler out of the ring by themselves. Good luck with that, Cheeseheads.
Perhaps they’ve just lost their appreciation of the perfectly executed Figure-4 headlock as practiced by the House Republicans? Remember, the Figure-4 is a submission hold. (See what I did there?)
You know, Erin, I think many people are too quick to dismiss our metaphors as simply glib speech when, if you really take our ideas, like the Sumo wrestler comparison, and expand on them, they soon see just how apt they are! We’re under-appreciated, like all geniuses, but history will bear us out. Unless Newt Gingrich rewrites it. Again.
I digress.
One other point, that doesn’t fit into the wrestling motif, is that Wisconsin was the first state to endorse collective bargaining and now they’re the first to reject it. That establishes a cycle and I’d be willing to bet it occurs again because that’s what cycles do, they cycle, so my panties are much less bunched than your typical bleeding heart liberal-though still as frilly as ever.
I like to feel pretty.
The good news out of Tuesday is that seemly more Badgers are involved and invested in the process than two years ago and if that energy can be harnessed and focused into sound governance, well, hey, they just might have something going on there. If Governor Walker can do that, he just might make it off my dartboard. Other than the raw force of the mandate, the recall is very much a Wisconsin thing and reflects very little of the national mood, but the force is compelling. The vote total indicates, to me, a more engaged electorate and if THAT is the national trend, the presidential candidates would be well served to start giving stemwinders full of nuance, philosophy and history on policy, not just recitation of the politics and positions we’re familiar with. They’ve got our full attention now: go for informed consent to the policies they wish to embrace.
Part 2.
Does the recall vote have a macro lesson for the nation? Well, yes, a subtle one nestled in the broad message of the gathered voice of Wisconsin: fortune favors the bold and, whether I think Walker is correct in his actions or not, he has taken action when so many politicians have sought refuge from the storms of these times. Several years ago, I wrote a letter to you (the "What if?" letter) where I stated, "What if Newton was wrong, action doesn't equal reaction, and Washington could fix everything by doing nothing?" Now, I acknowledge, nestled in that statement are a couple of assertions that could be quibbled with, that Washington can, or should, fix everything and, of utmost importance to me personally, that physics does actually, and accurately, reflect reality (both questions dealt with in the" Paul Begala " letter) but the thrust of the question has been shown to be true by the result on Tuesday. The people have plainly stated their belief that governance has the capacity and obligation to address the problems of today and now the government is empowered to respond.
This, in and of itself, is quite a turn-around from the Tea-Party movement of 2010 when the thrust of the argument was a limited role of government. The people have said, "Take control."
Now, before the neo-cons out there get all excited, I agree the mandate is for less government overall BUT the interesting thing to me is that there is renewed faith in the exercise of democracy to bring that about. Again, quite a turn-around from the "Occupy" movement of a year ago. The people have said, "The system will still work."
I find this encouraging because it could bring both the right and left fringes back into the center.
So, as conflicted as I am about what was endorsed in Wisconsin, I'm glad it was said so clearly by so many. I found it edifying.
Part 3.
So, what exactly is this conflict I feel in the endorsement of the current practice of conservatism? As it is currently being expressed, in these times, I believe conservatism is, while not necessarily counter-productive, less productive as an economic philosophy than Keynesian counter-cyclical spending and will have to engage in income redistribution of one kind or another to have ultimate success.
There, I said it and I just feel so free right now, like a great burden has lifted from me.
The thrust of the conservative argument is that business CAN'T expand because of regulations. Okay, let's assume the climate is made perfect for expansion, every possible barrier to capitalism has be removed, government is austere and chastised and now what? Does Business come sweeping in to revel in the glory prepared for them? Do they start hiring, expanding and producing in their new liaise-faire wonderland?
I think most of us have seen the movie "Field of Dreams" and are familiar with the phrase "If you build it, they will come." What is most often lost in that scenario is the inherent leap of faith necessary for that to work. Even if everything is perfect for business, will they make the leap of faith to expand and hire in an environment that STILL lacks demand for those goods and services? Maybe it's just my observation of businessmen but they don't seem to act on faith, rather on data, and are compelled to do so by their shareholders. If General Electric suddenly announced a massive expansion and hiring, in this environment, shareholders would be stampeding to the sales floor to bail out of it and there goes that expansion...
Now the argument could be made, "If there isn't demand here, there's demand somewhere, globally, for the product and if the environment is that perfect, it will become more competitive globally." Perhaps true but it still requires that leap of faith AND the willingness to produce here and ship to the market, as opposed to producing in the market it is serving. If you were a businessman, what would you do?
Of course, that scenario also necessiates wages not just as low as the lowest competing labor force but the lowest wage MINUS shipping costs. Ouch.
All conservative philosophies are based on the premise that business sets the table for the economy. Keynesian philosophy is that government sets the table for business because it controls the printing of currency businesses trade in and are, therefore, more responsible and responsive to fluctuations in the value of that currency. As much as it would please my inner socialist to say that business caused the recession the truth is the recession was a reaction caused by the action of a sustained period of low wage growth. Over the last 30 years, government has consistently sided with business to keep wages low and now, surprise! No demand across the broad economy. Who'd have thunk right?
So, to recap, who caused the recession? The government, endorsed by the people. Who's responsible for fixing it? Business? That hardly seems fair, now does it? We, all of us, allowed this to happen by believing that greed would fix everything and unfettered greed was the greatest moral good.
Sorry about that, I know not everybody likes that much honesty.
We're paying attention now though, right? Wow, what a mess we've got. Deeply in debt AND a deflating economy. We've got a lot of work to do and I'm suggesting we get to it as soon a possible. The only asset we have is our ability to borrow at extremely low rates, both domestically and abroad. Why is this true and unlikely to change? We're a responsible country, historically, and our prosperity is vital to the economies of the rest of the world. These countries aren't loaning us money simply for the interest they will make on the loan but because they HAVE to loan us money. We buy their products and they are subsidising our DEMAND for their products. If they stop loaning us money their economies contract. So we borrow the money and use it DIRECTLY as our creditors wish us to use it, as demand stimulus, on fiscal spending programs and, as we grow our way out, everyone feels less pain.
Here's my favorite math equation for you to consider: the US government can currently borrow money at approximately 2-3% per annum on the world market. According to the GAO, the rate of economic stimulus in unemployment benefits returns $1.60 in activity for each $1 spent. Maybe I'm wrong about this Erin, you like to crunch numbers-crunch those, but it appears to me we should borrow money, give it away and use the increased revenue and business cycle to not only pay-off the debt, but to re-inflate the economy.
Yeah, I know, moral hazard, yeah, yeah, yeah. Would you prefer economic hazard?
Part 4.
Sorry about the stemwinder, and all that, but as I stated earlier I believe this is the time for nuance, philosophy and history. I think people want to reconnect to the intrinsic nature of our culture and society, and the expression of the oft-forgotten underpinnings of what we are doing here.
To this end I offer:
60, Rabindranath Tagore
The Goldberg Variations, Bach
Sonnet 43, Elizabeth Barrett Browning
The Dead, James Joyce
What a wonderful world, Louis Armstrong
Europa, Carlos Santana
Maybe you already know these things, maybe you've forgotten and just needed to be reminded. We all want to be great, to be remembered but maybe being great sometimes means just the work, keeping the wheels on the wagon, and allowing someone else to be great.
And we certainly have an opportunity for that.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)